Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

52 Excellent

About okder

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. well most bugs i did find is fixed now, still for now i will not update version from main link, only updated dev one, and it do write too detail debug logs. p.s. managed to execute 1 hour(actually 4 hour if include warped ion burning far from periapsis) prograde ejection burn with 140 km kerbin periapsis with help of new version, but for such long burn need a lot of practice even with additional functionality (near periapsis high thrust engines used for 20% of burn deltav).
  2. a lot of new features introduced in version with link from previous post... waiting for bugs...
  3. laythe -> vall fixes and refactor begin https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WzovyRVp_aYhe9p_UOdWcoMtDL_h2RH2/view?usp=sharing many changes soon, sources would go in initial link, but dll s in separate link for now.
  4. updated for, tested with ksp 1.8.1, probably could work with 1.9, but untested. there were too many changes in mechjeb, some code from old mechjeb included for compatibility.
  5. nope it needs to be early as it only practical long term reactor which do use antimatter (actually it is possible that first spaceship reactors would be that type) so it needs to be early but upgrade tech make it more powerfull. and i think it's better to add new pebble bed tech in the end nodes which do upgrade its from 3.5 to 4.5 gw, other tech do upgrades only to 3.5 gw. and another bug found - pebble bed while shutdowing(5% remaining) does full thrust on engines (should have very limited thrust and poor isp). p.s. for main bug with scaling solution is not sc
  6. additional to balance candle traveling wave reactor engine should probably be later in tech tree, i do use it too often for probes instead of other small (non nuclear) engines, and Bill Gates still had not build ground many tonnage version.
  7. that's only means that fuel efficiency and isp(core temperature) would be compromised in favor of power in case of reactor used for planes/ssto in real world, other (fusion) reactors still would have good core temperature and fuel efficiency, but specific one needed for (!heat! propulsion) power would be still better than any fission reactor in the end.
  8. while you have TWR >0.1 you can use obereth effect and for local vessel (which is not meant to travel far) TWR important, if you have TWR > 0.2 it will help to get to orbit (last 20%-30% orbital speed), for long interplanetary/interstellar flight - yes ISP is very important, just different usages. problem that no one in real universe would use big antimatter tanks inside atmosphere near surface or outposts/cities - only far in space, so practically antimatter would not be used for ssto, unless someone could guarantee that it will safely dissipate on crash - fusion here is best.
  9. probably core temperature should stays the same, only power increase is suffice. description still says about "ideal for ssto".
  10. it probably can be balanced with more energy required to sustain reaction (for Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor) to get more power output, i.e. it would be much less power efficient, and even may be less isp efficient in that mode but get more power output. (i.e. thermometric generator used other way around - as heat pump - to cool overheated overdrived core)? but it probably would need generator/radiator/cooler which uses waste heat for heating engine propellant, otherwise such reaction is unsustainable.
  11. i thought that with better tech minimum power waste heat should be better too, that's why last one is 2% not 3%, but max power should be lower, or all fusion reactors should be better, now only antimatter reactors gives significantly more power per raw mass, fusions requires a lot of upgrades only to get equal(slightly better because of mass but there other problems too) to pebble bed. point here that at middle of game you getting best reactor for ssto, and it actually could be build with modern realworld tech, and it also suitable for many other application (though at s
  12. i should point out that cap limit of magnetized target fusion reactor is 4.1 gw (40 000+ science req), i.e. unless using antimatter pebble bed still would be best reactor for ssto.
  13. if mass can't be changed then temperature AND lower power boost from tech-upgrades i.e. limit it to 3 GW with all upgrades not 4.5 GW. but with same change also lower idle power level i.e. to 7% for first upgrade 4% for second upgrade, and 2% for last upgrade, then it will lower mass required for radiators, and if possible make it less sensible for overhead with all upgrades (this is important for ssto).
  • Create New...